Standing Committee E

[Mr. Peter Pike in the Chair]

Housing Bill

Clause 147 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 148 - Exceptions to the right to buy: houses due to be demolished

Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 445A, in
clause 148, page 100, line 12, at end insert—
 '16 The Right to Buy does not apply in a rural area if the area has been exempted by regulations made by the Secretary of State.'.
 The amendment has been suggested by the Local Government Association. The right to acquire—a similar right to that set out in the amendment—is currently exempted in rural areas, a provision that was enacted by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) some time in the past. The loss of social housing stock in rural areas far exceeds the problem in urban areas. In many cases, properties in rural areas are attractive to buy and the rate of the right to buy social housing has been greater in many rural parts of Britain than in urban areas. 
 As I said, the amendment is similar to that covering the right to acquire and it would ensure that there was parity between the two provisions and that the housing stock in rural areas did not continue to be decimated in the way that it has been. That has led to problems, especially since the Secretary of State or his officials tend to issue low house building quotas in those rural areas. In many cases, they cannot build social properties to replace those that have been lost because they do not have enough permissions to do so—let alone finance, an area into which I will not stray at the moment. I want to give the Minister an opportunity to discuss something that he is concerned about. If the amendment is not the appropriate solution for the problem, perhaps he can find another solution.

Keith Hill: Before I deal with the amendment, I should like—with your permission, Mr. Pike—to engage in my now traditional grand tour of the part of the world that we are now visiting. I know that the Committee has found such a device helpful, but it may be even more helpful on this occasion because it will enable me to mention several clauses to which no amendments have been tabled. I shall explain the general purposes of part 6 of the Bill, which deals with the right to buy.
 Clauses 147 to 154 introduce several changes to the right-to-buy scheme to tackle exploitation of the rules. The right to buy has extended the housing choices available to people on modest incomes, widened the 
 distribution of economic assets and assisted in the development of stable mixed-tenure communities. The Government are completely committed to the principle of right to buy. However, time has shown up weaknesses that some are willing to exploit. The right to buy was conceived as a means of helping social tenants to realise their aspiration to own their own home. It was never intended as an opportunity to play the market and make a quick buck. We are aware of increasing concerns among landlords and responsible tenants about early resales of homes sold under the right to buy and about the involvement of companies that exploit such opportunities. Such activities have two effects. They divert resources away from the generation and provision of affordable housing, and into the pockets of individuals and companies. That worsens the plight of many thousands of people who desperately need low-cost housing but have to watch as affordable social homes are sold on and rented out at market rates. 
 Research published in 2003, carried out by Heriot-Watt university for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, showed that at least 2,000 ex-council homes in inner London are now available only at rents of between £750 and £1,000 a month, compared with council rents of £300 a month. It concluded that such deals account for some 6 per cent. of RTB sales in London. In some cases, ex-council properties were leased back at market rents to councils, housing associations or even Government agencies housing asylum seekers. The measures in part 6 aim to rebalance the right to buy back towards long-term home ownership and the building of stable communities, and to tackle the cynical exploitation of rules by companies. All the changes to the right to buy will automatically be carried across the preserved right to buy and the right to acquire under the Housing Acts of 1985 and 1996, subject to the necessary regulations made by the Secretary of State.

Karen Buck: My right hon. Friend is aware that I have been concerned about the impact of the re-letting of ex-council property to homeless families. Has he made any assessment of the cost to housing benefit of that practice? In my constituency and across London, it is certainly true that homeless families are re-housed in temporary accommodation let back to the local authority through registered social landlords, and that housing benefit is picking up the difference between a rent that would have been £80 for a council property, but is now £300 or £350 a week.

Keith Hill: My hon. Friend, as ever, makes an extremely good point. I do not have that analysis immediately to hand, although I undertake to establish whether we can arrive at some figures. If we can, I shall circulate them to the Committee. The borough that she represents and my own are among the inner-London boroughs most affected. The estimate is that 2000 ex-council properties, 6 per cent. of RTB sales, have gone to companies exploiting that right, on top of which there is that loss to the public
 purse through high housing benefit payments. Her intervention reinforces the strength of the case for the measures that the Government are implementing.
 Let me describe briefly the purposes of clause 147. Tenants will have to wait five years to buy, instead of the current two years. However, I should stress that they will be eligible for the same level of discount after five years as they are under the current rules. The current two-year period is too short. Tenants can count any periods of tenancy with a wide range of public bodies towards their right to buy. That means that many tenants qualify for the RTB as soon as they move into their council home, which might be in a completely different area from where they lived before. Extending the period to five years will encourage tenants to make a longer-term commitment to a community before they can buy. If we reflect on the history of the right to buy, there was a recognition that tenants who had a perfectly reasonable aspiration to home ownership—which is, after all enjoyed by 70 per cent. of our population—were long-term tenants who had a commitment to remaining in their communities, and who had no desire to move out or make a quick killing through the RTB process. 
 Let me now turn to clause 149. We will have the opportunity to debate it greater detail, but I thought that it would be helpful to refer to it.

Peter Pike: Order. The Chair is allowing you to raise these points with the view that it will help the debate, although I am mindful that we are debating one amendment. I hope that it will mean that later debates are briefer. The Minister may therefore continue, but not too lengthily.

Keith Hill: I do not intend to proceed too lengthily. I shall address amendment No. 445A in the course of my remarks, but I share your aspiration, Mr. Pike, that the exercise that I am engaged in should facilitate our later discussions.
 People who buy will have to wait five years instead of three, as at present, before they can resell without repaying some or all of their discount. Landlords will have discretion not to require the repayment of discount. We are aware of cases where repayment might cause hardship, where owners have suffered bereavement or a sudden disabling illness and need to move but have been prevented from doing so because they could not afford to repay the RTB discount. Such circumstances are fortunately few, but they do occur and need to be addressed sympathetically. We propose to issue guidance on when the discretion might be used. Apart from those examples that I have already mentioned, they might include the need to move to escape harassment or domestic violence or, for unemployed people, to take up employment opportunities elsewhere. 
 The amount of discount to be repaid will, in future, be based on the resale value of the property. If the discount was equivalent to, say, 30 per cent. of the property's RTB sale price, the amount to be repaid in the event of an early resale will be 30 per cent. of its 
 resale value. Our aim is to claw back for the taxpayer a fairer proportion of the benefit of a rising market, while allowing people to sell on in areas of declining values. The one-third repayment taper—full discount to be repaid if the property is resold within a year of the RTB sale, two thirds if it is resold within year two, and one third if it is resold within year three—will be changed to one fifth per year. 
 The amount of discount to be repaid will exclude the value of any improvements made by the owner since buying. If that value is disputed, it will be determined by the district valuer, as long as it is reasonably practicable for him to do so. His reasonable costs, which are £400 in London and £325 elsewhere in the country, are paid by the seller. If the district valuer does not make a determination, the value of improvements will not be excluded from the discount to be repaid. 
 In clause 153, we are also building on landlords' long-standing duty to provide information about the terms of their secure tenancies. We agree with the LGA that RTB landlords should be under a duty to provide information to their tenants on the implications of home ownership. That was endorsed by the Select Committee, which also recommended that the information should be provided by third parties. We understand that view, but consider it to be difficult to implement fairly. 
 We envisage the information being provided in the form of a fact sheet, and will prescribe what kinds of information it would be reasonable to require landlords to provide and what would be helpful to tenants, and when it should be provided. The information may well include the costs involved in buying and maintaining a property, such as stamp duty, professional fees and insurance, and the costs of repairs and maintenance including service charges levied on people who have bought flats. It may also include a reminder about the right of first refusal, which is introduced in clause 152, which I will touch on. We will be consulting stakeholders. 
 We agree with the home ownership taskforce that rent to mortgage should be ended. That will do away with a little-used scheme. That is expressed in clause 154. There have only been about 360 sales in 10 years, and we are looking at other more effective ways of helping tenants who cannot afford the RTB. 
 We also agree with the suggestion by the LGA and the Select Committee that before selling on the open market, RTB owners should have to offer their homes to social landlords if they wish to resell within 10 years of buying—of course, at market value. That is articulated in clause 152. However, it may not always make sense for the property to be offered back to the original landlord as a council may have since transferred its stock to a registered social landlord. The Bill provides for other local social landlords to be given a chance to buy the property but they will have no more than eight weeks to make up their mind. Thereafter, the owner will be free to resell on the open market. It would be unfair to owners of ex-RTB homes to allow any longer, but we will consult on the ground rules. 
 The aim is to provide a means by which ex-RTB homes can be returned to the social sector. Such an option has been available to landlords for many years in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and designated rural areas. We intend that that should continue, while extending the right of first refusal to all other RTB landlords. I will deal with social housing in rural areas shortly. 
 Part 6 tackles two long-standing abuses. First, tenants will not be able to buy their home if they have been notified that it is to be demolished in the next 18 months. That appears in clause 148. That provision is intended to stop tenants buying at a discount and then making a windfall profit from compulsory purchase compensation. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) has campaigned tirelessly on that. It will be possible to extend the 18-month period, but only with the Government's agreement, and we will not hesitate to revoke demolition notices if it appears to us that there is actually no intention to demolish. 
 Secondly, agreements by RTB tenants to resell their home to companies after the discount repayment period has ended will in future count as ''a relevant disposal'', so that former landlords can demand the repayment of discount. That appears in clause 151. The liability to repay will be a charge on the property, making policing relatively easy. Such deals, usually involving a lump sum payment to the tenant, are a blatant evasion of the repayment rules, benefiting the company at the expense of the taxpayer. Significant numbers of homes sold under the RTB in inner London have found their way into company ownership and now command market rents, making them unaffordable by people in those areas on average incomes. Advertisements offering such deals have appeared in national and local newspapers in the north and the south-east. 
 I look forward to discussing these measures in more detail as we progress through part 6. To assist that discussion, I have made available to the Committee drafts of the consultation documents on the new right of first refusal and on the provision of information to tenants. 
 I am grateful to you, Mr. Pike, for your indulgence in allowing me to offer this overview. Without further ado, I turn to amendment No. 445A. The Government's aim, expressed in their rural White Paper, is to ensure that more of the existing housing in rural areas is available to local people. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) accused the Government of setting low house building targets in rural areas. We set specific targets for affordable house building in settlements of 3,000 and fewer in our rural Green Paper, and I am delighted to inform the Committee that those targets have been exceeded in each of the past two years. The Government are committed to those targets, but that is not without a certain amount of resistance and contention from organisations that have responsibility for delivering affordable housing in some of our regions.

Matthew Green: I did not go too strongly on that point because, as the Minister knows, we have been talking about this matter outside the Committee Room. South Shropshire has fewer than 400 permissions left by 2011, but last year's affordable needs survey showed that there was a need for 1,400 affordable homes between now and 2007. There are not enough permissions to keep the local working population working there, despite the fact that South Shropshire has one of the most radical affordable housing policies in the country—if only his inspectorate will allow it to go through the local planners, as it appears that it is trying to water down the affordable housing policy. I am sure that the Minister cannot comment on that latter point, but I know that he shares the concerns about it. I am just concerned that he is talking about the overall picture in the country or the region as a whole, but that the problem is in specific rural areas. South Shropshire is not alone but it is, perhaps, one of the more blatant cases.

Keith Hill: I want to discuss the Liberal Democrat proposal on those matters, which I have examined with interest. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that he is being a little naughty in almost tempting me down the path of commenting on local planning decisions. He knows as well as I do, that whenever the question of planning is mentioned I have to come over all quasi-judicial, and I could not possibly comment on the matter.
 Under section 157 of the Housing Act 1985, landlords in areas designated as rural by the Secretary of State, in national parks and in areas of outstanding natural beauty, may place restrictions on the resale of homes sold under the right-to-buy scheme. Landlords have a choice: they can either require owners to resell only to people who have lived or worked locally for at least three years, or, if they prefer, they can require them to offer the property back to the former landlord. 
 Clause 152 of the Bill extends a right of first refusal to all other right-to-buy landlords, wherever they are. However, it explicitly retains the current system in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, and designated rural areas. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns about housing in rural areas and, as I said, I have read with interest his party's policy paper on affordability, which he kindly sent me recently. I note that his party is in favour of increased levels of owner occupation, but not, it appears, in rural areas, if one examines the amendment. The amendment would serve to deny many tenants the chance to become home owners. It would be too inflexible to do that across the board. There is no reason why local tenants should not have the right to become home owners in the areas in which they have lived previously. The existing restrictions on reselling, which are already in place in a significant proportion of our countryside—the seven national parks, the 37 areas of outstanding natural beauty and 26 areas that the Secretary of State and his predecessors have designated as rural—are sufficient. Tenants can choose 
 to buy or to continue to rent, while landlords can choose to impose one or other of the two resale restrictions, or not to include any restriction. In the light of those most reasonable observations, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Matthew Green: I thank the Minister for his observations. He is saying that the amendment would overly restrict a tenant's right to buy in certain areas. The problem is, however, that in such areas those houses cannot be replaced at the rate at which they are being lost. Therefore, there will be a diminution of the social market in rented properties, and that is a serious issue.
 I know that the Minister has examined the issue of house prices in South Shropshire and he will know that the average property costs nearly £200,000. As hon. Members who might have been present at Tuesday's debate on council tax will know, £15,000 is a reasonable household income in South Shropshire, so it would be almost impossible to buy a property worth £150,000. There is a shortage of rented properties, as there is in much of the country—whether that be in the private or registered social landlord sector. If the Minister was to allow South Shropshire—and other authorities that face that problem—to build sufficient properties and, via the Housing Corporation, allow the funding to help to get those RSL properties built, there would not be the same need to restrict the right to buy. 
 The Minister must move in one direction or the other. At the moment we are being constrained in both directions and we are losing housing stock. In South Shropshire it is primarily purchased by people—professional couples—who are retiring from London and the south-east. I have no problem with people wanting to come and live in Shropshire; I am delighted that they want to. However, they are pushing up the house prices, which are not related to local incomes. The working population are being driven from the area. The local council has come up with imaginative schemes, as the Minister knows, and those are being put in place, but they are held back by housing numbers. While those housing numbers are so restricted in the area, there is a need to constrain sales. 
 If the Minister will not accept the blanket amendment, will he at least consider areas such as South Shropshire where there are problems? Will he consider adding the same exclusions on discounts as those added for parts of the country in the home counties? He obviously believes that there is a problem in those areas. However, he has failed to realise that some of the more remote rural areas, such as Cornwall and Shropshire, have considerable attraction for retired professional people, who move to properties there. They sell their property on the edge of London for £350,000 and come up and buy a cottage for £250,000. Those areas are not necessarily covered by the categories that the Minister mentioned. 
 If the Minister intervenes on me and agrees to consider specific cases in those areas instead of using a blanket rule, I will be only too happy to say that 
 perhaps the blanket rule might not apply. I am inviting him to intervene on me; after all, I am not committing him to anything. I am asking him to consider specific cases, but he does not seem to want to do even that.

Keith Hill: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for not committing me; that is extremely obliging. He makes a strong constituency point, but I certainly cannot accept the blanket amendment. I realise that I am making an intervention, by the way. We recognise that there are hot spots—areas into which a good deal of equity goes—and that that is driving up the house prices. We responded to that in the south-west by increasing funding for social affordable housing by 30 per cent. I recognise that there are hot spots elsewhere, and although I have no intention whatsoever of introducing across-the-board restrictions, which the hon. Gentleman calls for in his amendment, we will continue to monitor the situation.

Matthew Green: I suppose that ''monitor the situation'' is about as much as I will get out of the Minister this morning. He is clearly being careful and cautious with his words, and does not want to stray beyond what his officials might want him to say. Sometimes I wish that he would be braver and bolder, and would lead, rather than sticking to his brief with such rigidity. However, I see that I will not win this one. He knows that I will continue to press on the issue, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 148 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 149 - Repayment of discount: periods and amounts applicable

Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 437, in
clause 149, page 100, line 25, leave out 'five' and insert 'six'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 448, in 
clause 149, page 100, line 25, leave out 'five' and insert 'ten'. 
No. 438, in 
clause 149, page 100, line 31, leave out 'five' and insert 'six'. 
No. 450, in 
clause 149, page 100, line 31, leave out 'five' and insert 'ten'. 
No. 451, in 
clause 149, page 100, line 34, leave out 'five' and insert 'ten'. 
No. 439, in 
clause 149, page 101, line 5, leave out 'fifth' and insert 'sixth'. 
No. 440, in 
clause 149, page 101, line 17, leave out 'fifth' and insert 'sixth'.

Matthew Green: This is, in a sense, a probing amendment. It would replace ''five years'' with ''six years''. I see that the Conservatives have been even bolder and have gone for 10 years.

Robert Syms: He is a communist.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman says that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) is a communist. That was one of the more fascinating and unbelievable of the many interesting things that the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) has said in Committee.
 The amendment aims to probe the Government on why they picked five years. Did it seem like a good period? Why not six or 10 years? There is an issue to do with the repayment of discounts. The proportion of the discount that someone pays back depends on how long they keep the property. I want the Government to explain why the time period is five years; I am not necessarily any more in favour of six or 10 than five, but they need to justify it. I tabled my amendment to seek that justification—and presumably that is why the Conservatives tabled theirs.

John Hayes: Briefly, Mr. Pike, because you will not allow me to go into great detail, it is worth saying in relation to the amendment how shocked I was to hear that the Liberal Democrats want to restrict the right to buy for the millions of people who live in rural Britain. A message should ring out from this Committee that the Liberal Democrats are the enemies of rural people living in social housing who want to fulfil their aspiration to home ownership. I take that very seriously. I shall move swiftly on, Mr. Pike; otherwise, you will say that I am debating a previous amendment. I would never wish you to, even quite properly, criticise me for something that I was saying or doing.
 This group of amendments allows us, because of its scope, to reflect on the differences between the parties in this Room. The plain truth is that the Labour party is comprised of recalcitrant converts to the right to buy. It is reluctant about the principle of right to buy, and there can be no better illustration of that than looking at its history. Was not it Aneurin Bevan who said, ''We do not need a crystal ball when we've got the history book''? As my hon. Friend the Member for Poole has accused me of having sympathies with the left, perhaps it is appropriate that I quote that distinguished former Labour politician. 
 At its genesis the right to buy was opposed hook, line and sinker by Labour. I would not mind betting that the Minister as a youth—he can only have been a youth in the 1970s—when he was assiduously studying Belgian politics, may well have been a critic of the right to buy. Incidentally, I want to reveal that the Minister is the only man on this Committee who can name more than half a dozen Belgians and I do not include Hercule Poirot, because he is fictional. I shall give way, because the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) wants to intervene.

Alan Whitehead: No; we were just saying that we could name more than six Belgians.

Peter Pike: Order. We do not want sedentary interventions. If people want to speak, they should stand; they should not make comments while they are seated.

John Hayes: Those very words had sprung to my mind, Mr. Pike, but it would have been inappropriate for me to use them.
 The Labour party's record in this field is lamentable. I have a memorandum—[Interruption.] Well, like Neville Chamberlain, I have a piece of paper. We certainly are ranging widely this morning, Mr. Pike, from Aneurin Bevan to Neville Chamberlain!

Peter Pike: Order. Yes, and the Chair wants to see progress made on this paper.

John Hayes: I have a memorandum from no less a person than the current Foreign Secretary to the Secretary of State for the Environment—a Conservative, of course—which was written when he merely signed his name as a Member of Parliament. It says:
 ''Labour will continue to oppose the sale of council houses . . . Labour does not oppose the sale of council houses to sitting tenants of two years' standing who want to buy, so long as such sales...do not damage a local authority's ability to meet the demand for decent homes to rent.'' 
On the surface that may not seem unreasonable, but it conceals a fundamental mistrust of the principle of right to buy, which has run through Labour thinking since those early days. It was impossible for the Labour party to come out hook, line and sinker and say that the right to buy was a bad idea, but it was not prepared to commit to it in anything other than a passive way. That is what we see once again in these measures and changes.

Mark Field: My hon. Friend may also wish to highlight the actions of many Labour local authorities that deliberately stifle sales under the right to buy, particularly in London, making it increasingly difficult for long-standing tenants to buy their own properties under the provisions brought in by the Conservative Government of 1979.

John Hayes: Yes, there were countless examples after the blessed Margaret Thatcher. It is clear who I think is sainted—a person on a different scale of personality to the Minister.
 When the blessed Margaret Thatcher introduced those measures, there were countless examples of Labour local authorities that went out of their way to frustrate them by all kinds of means, such as separating garages from houses and discouraging people through the inadequate provision of information. There were many ways in which they put the frighteners on council tenants to prevent them from exercising their right to buy. 
Ms Buck rose—

John Hayes: I will make some progress and then give way to the hon. Lady, who is as charming as ever in courteously indicating that she wishes to intervene. I anticipate her contribution with enthusiasm.
 To address the amendment directly, Mr. Pike—you have been generous with me thus far—the right to buy has come to be abused in certain ways. It would be less 
 than honest of us not to acknowledge that, and we do so in the amendments under discussion. There is undoubtedly abuse, and that abuse cannot reasonably be tolerated by Committee members. We have moved amendments that would curb that abuse in a more effective way than the Government propose. 
 Our amendment would extend from five years to 10 the period in which resale is prohibited, although we mitigate its effect on people who in extenuating circumstances—if, for example, they suffer ill health, bereavement or other types of trauma—are obliged to sell their property. We have also tabled balancing amendments that protect people's interests in other ways, but it is important to signal the concern about abuse felt by people across the political spectrum.

Matthew Green: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's Damascene conversion to tackling abuses of the right to buy. Can he confirm that, when in Government, the Conservatives did very little to deal with the abuse of right to buy in Westminster?

John Hayes: We have been told where the Liberals stand: they do not even approve of the principle—except apparently for people who live in cities. Does the hon. Gentleman have a grudge against his constituents and other people in villages and rural towns across Britain, or has he been seduced by metropolitan culture since becoming a Member of Parliament? There must be some reason why he has a down on rural people and communities, and until he apologises for that slur—that proposed restriction on their freedoms—he had better not participate in the debate on the right to buy at all. For he has dropped a major clanger. When the headlines of the journals and newspapers of Ludlow say, ''Green doesn't want you to have the right to own your own home,'' he may come to regret the amendment that he moved earlier.

Matthew Green: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Hayes: I will not give way again, because I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is about to suggest a further prohibition affecting the people of the countryside, and as I care about them and am of them, that would cut me to the quick.

Karen Buck: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Hayes: Is it about Belgium?

Peter Pike: Order. Before I call the hon. Lady, let me urge hon. Members to keep to the amendment under debate and not get on to Belgium or revisit the previous amendment. I am sure that you will be in order, Ms Buck.

Karen Buck: The hon. Gentleman is extremely gallant in giving way to me.
 While we are discussing the right to buy, will he take the opportunity of which no Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen has ever availed himself to apologise for the abuse that afflicted the innocent residents of the London borough of Westminster under Dame Shirley Porter? She abused the right-to-buy scheme to the 
 extent that thousands of people in housing need suffered, and the people of Westminster now are owed £40 million by that benighted senior representative of the Conservative party.

Peter Pike: Order. Do not be led too far astray.

John Hayes: Seductive though the prospect is, I shall not be led astray by the hon. Lady, who is attempting to take us down a tributary, rather than staying on the main course. Conservative Members remember that it was Herbert Morrison, a Labour Minister, who said he was going to build the Tories out of London by building council houses in this great city, and that it was his miserable progeny who was the founder of new Labour. The link is absolutely clear between the resistance to the freedom and opportunity that right to buy has provided for hundreds of thousands of families in our cities and the countryside and the restrictions—snipping away and trimming the principle—which the Government seek to introduce through parts of the Bill.
 Let me say where the Minister is right. I rather like him, and I think that that has become apparent during the Committee. I know that when he speaks of the Government's proper desire to curb the abuse that the hon. Lady also cares about, he does so with a degree of knowledge of the problem and wisdom about the solution. That is why our amendment builds on the point that he has made. 
 However, we wish also to protect the interests of tenants. When the Minister in his general summary spoke about the right of first refusal—a subject to which I hope he will return to in later amendments—he failed to point out people's concern that it will result in the property not being valued at a market rate. Having first refusal might mean that the council will have tenants over a barrel. I am also worried that councils will drag their feet on the right to buy, which is why we have tabled a new clause that I hope we will have time to debate. The new clause would oblige councils to have a publicly accessible marketing plan on allowing people to exercise the right to buy, and to have related targets for which they are accountable. Those are ways in which we can assist and encourage the right to buy while curbing in a proper way the abuses that the Minister describes. 
 Let us commit to the right to buy but be realistic about the pitfalls. We must be sure that it is a good and wholesome policy, and is not distorted by a handful of unscrupulous people who take the opportunity to make a fast buck. The vast majority of those who have exercised the right to buy since it was introduced by a reforming and liberating Conservative Government are individuals and families who have, for the first time in many cases, taken the opportunity to own their own homes.

Brian Iddon: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will explain the reason for amendment No. 449, which worries me.

Peter Pike: Order. We are not on amendment No. 449. I would like to make it clear that we are discussing amendments that are important but simple—some of the simplest amendments that we have had. Let us keep to those amendments.

John Hayes: I think amendment No. 449 will be called next.

Peter Pike: It will indeed.

John Hayes: But it is right that the hon. Gentleman raises it, and we will deal with it at the appropriate time.
 The real problem, about which I know the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) is concerned, is the collapse—the figures make the case for using such a strong term—in the amount of social housing being built under the Labour Government. That was the subject of the question that I put to the Deputy Prime Minister. 
 The Minister will be aware that fewer social houses are being built by a combination of local authorities and registered social landlords than at any time for more than a decade. What is more, Kate Barker states in her interim report: 
 ''In 2001, around 175,000 dwellings were built in the UK—the lowest level since the Second World War.''

Matthew Green: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for about 15 minutes and he has not yet mentioned the simple amendments that you pointed out. I have a lot of sympathy with what he is saying, but should he not be guided to talk about the amendments?

Peter Pike: That point of order is valid. I have tried to draw to the attention of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings that the group of amendments that we are debating is narrow and simple.

John Hayes: The hon. Member for Ludlow has been stung by my attack on him, but I hear what you say, Mr. Pike, and I will be happy to address my remarks specifically to the amendments. Given that the Minister dealt with many of the principles of this part of the Bill in his opening peroration, you have been appropriately generous in allowing me also to address some of those issues of principle.

Karen Buck: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Hayes: I think that Mr. Pike is becoming somewhat intolerant—I will not say impatient—of unnecessary interventions. I do not accuse the hon. Lady of being guilty of that, but I do not want even to take the chance.
 The group of amendments is indicative of our recognition that changes in law are needed to deal with the abuse that the Minister identified. However, they must be seen in the context of our absolute determination to maintain the principle of the right to buy. Taken in the round with the other amendments that we have tabled to this part and with the new clause 
 that we have also tabled, the Minister will see that the Conservatives are taking a balanced view of this part of the Bill, and that the amendments reflect that. 
 It is absolutely right that this part of the Bill deals with abuses, but equally right that we take this opportunity to support the right to buy, to extend it where appropriate, and to inject new life into that important principle. That is precisely what Conservative Members intend to argue. It is what we believe in, and we hope that ultimately, despite the recalcitrance that I described in my opening remarks, the Labour party, the Government and even the Liberal Democrats will move towards it—albeit perhaps by being dragged kicking and screaming. 
 I hope that the Minister will affirm his enthusiastic commitment to the right to buy and acknowledge that he understands that the Conservative amendments strengthen his argument. I trust that that he and the Committee will therefore support them.

Keith Hill: Initially, I will respond to some of the observations made by the hon. Member for Ludlow. He taunted the Government for the figures on the current level of social house building. Although we have doubled investment in housing compared with the level of funding that we inherited in 1997, particularly in key areas of the country, the costs of house building are now so great that that investment does not produce as many houses as we would like—output is not as large as we would desire in return for the input. That is partly why we are introducing proposals to increase competition and to explore new opportunities for increasing the building of new social housing later in the Bill.
 Does my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North have a thought that she would like to inject into the discussion at this moment? I almost anticipate the genesis of an idea in her mind and I would be delighted to respond to it.

Karen Buck: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend, who, as he so often does, anticipates me. Will he comment on the fact that it is precisely in those areas of highest housing demand in which the right to buy has been most extensive—particularly in inner-city communities, although in some high-demand rural areas as well—that the opportunities for and the cost of new build are greatest? As long as we live in an environment in which local housing decisions are taken by local authorities, we will find that we are in a bind: the greatest need for social housing is in those areas in which opportunities are most limited because of the impact of right to buy. That is not a criticism of right to buy itself, but of that mismatch between need and supply, which would be exacerbated by the Opposition's amendments.

Peter Pike: Order. I do hope that the Minister will be brief in his response and then keep to the amendments. I allowed him a lot of latitude on amendment No. 445A, but we must make progress. It is my responsibility to ensure that we reach the end of the Bill when we come back after the recess.

Keith Hill: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North. I will say a brief word about the costs as well as the benefits of the right-to-buy system. As for the social house building figures, if the Government had not faced the £19 billion in arrears in the modernisation of social housing, which we are seeking to tackle through very substantial investment through our decent homes programme, that sort of funding would be available to go into a new social house building programme. I say that merely in response to the observation made by the hon. Member for Ludlow. I had better not allow myself to be sucked down that path.
 If the hon. Gentleman is in any doubt about the overall success of the Government's social house building programme, I inform the Committee that today I have announced the latest figures for the quarter ending in December 2003. They show that in England there were 35,700 housing starts and 42,200 completions in that quarter, up 10 per cent. and 8 per cent. respectively on the same period in previous years. The latest available UK figures for 2002-03 show 195,000 starts and 183,000 completions. Completions are up on the previous year, reflecting the upturn in England and Northern Ireland. 
Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton, North) (Lab) rose—

Keith Hill: My hon. Friend persists on this matter; I had better respond.

Sally Keeble: I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend commented on the observation that the availability of land is part of the problem of trying to get more social housing, and more affordable housing generally. The Government's proposals for new growth areas are extremely important if we are to meet some of the housing shortage. The virulent opposition of the Liberal Democrats to any of the new proposals in the Milton Keynes area and the inefficiencies of the Tory councils in that area are major problem as we try to tackle housing shortage.

Peter Pike: Order. The Chair has to guide the Committee and make clear that the amendments that we are debating would change the wording of the Bill in clause 149(2) from ''five years'' to ''six years'' or ''ten years''. That is what we have to debate at this stage. I do not say that the points being made are not important, but they are not relevant to the amendments before us.

Keith Hill: Thank you, Mr. Pike. I turn immediately to the amendments before us.
 Clause 149 returns the period within which RTB discount or rent to mortgage must be repaid on early disposal to five years, as it was between 1980 and 1987—the period of governance, if that is the correct expression, of the ''blessed'' Margaret Thatcher. The current three-year repayment period encourages tenants in high-demand areas to buy with the intention of selling as soon as possible, to take advantage of 
 rising prices. In some areas they are encouraged further by companies seeking to buy up properties at a discount to let at market rents. 
 The Government's intention in clause 149 is to encourage buyers to commit themselves to their local communities in the longer term and, in clause 151, to discourage the involvement of companies. Work by the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the Institute of Actuaries suggests that in the 1990s the average home buyer tended to stay in the property that they had bought for up to seven years before moving on. It is in view of that finding that the Government consider a five-year discount repayment period to be reasonable. 
 The hon. Member for Ludlow acknowledged that his was a probing amendment. There is nothing sacrosanct about the five years. The period is a matter of judgment, and our judgment has been informed by the statistical analysis to which I alluded. The point of principle is clear. The Government enthusiastically embrace the principle of right to buy, notwithstanding the Opposition's accusation. It is worth bearing in mind that between 1999 and 2003 there were nearly 250,000 right-to-buy sales in this country—that is hardly evidence of the Government putting obstacles in the way of the right-to-buy process. 
 Of course we accept that people who live in a community, have done so for a long time, and wish to remain there have the right to aspire to the home ownership enjoyed by 70 per cent. of our population. As a Member representing an inner-London constituency in which I have seen the right to buy exercised extensively, I must observe that, on some estates, mixed tenure confers some benefits on local communities. It is noticeable in the local tenants' and residents' organisations that I strongly encourage in my constituency that it is often leaseholders who are the most active on behalf of the local community. There are clear benefits, and there is a clear leavening. 
 The Committee will also acknowledge that, as well as benefits, there have been costs as a result of the right-to-buy process. If one looks at the history of right to buy since its introduction in 1980, the fact is that the public sector has forgone £40 billion at current prices in receipts by not charging RTB tenants the full market value of their homes. That is £40 billion that might otherwise have been used for investment in social housing. So of course although there are benefits and opportunities arising from the RTB system, there are costs, too.

Matthew Green: To go back to the figure given by the Council of Mortgage Lenders that seven years was the average tenure for an owner-occupier, is that figure a mean or a median? Therefore, of what quintile is the five years reflective in terms of house ownership?

Keith Hill: For a mediaeval historian, the hon. Gentleman is obviously a statistical whiz kid. I have not got a clue as to whether the figure is a median, a medium or a quintile, for that matter. Personally, I am content to rest on the statistic per se as being perfectly adequate guidance. The hon. Gentleman is being too clever by half. I am reminded of other well known sayings; the hon. Member for South Holland and The
 Deepings has already given us a tour through the late Labour greats. Incidentally, the correct Nye Bevan quotation is:
 ''Why read the crystal when he can read the book?'' 
As I listened to the familiar refrain of the hon. Member for Ludlow in his attack on the present Government's attitude to RTB, I was reminded of Nye Bevan's near namesake, the late, great Ernie Bevin, who is one of my favourites. In addition to that great phrase ''tour d'horizon'', one of Ernie's favourites was, '''im, 'e's talking clitch after clitch after clitch'', which was all we heard from the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings on this subject. I had better not recount what Ernie said about another late, great Labour figure, Herbert Morrison, whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned. [Interruption.] Well, I will. Ernie was in a conversation with somebody who said that the trouble with Herbert was that he was his own worst enemy. Ernie replied, ''Not while I'm alive he ain't.''

Peter Pike: Order. This is very interesting. Many of those people were still in the Labour party when I first started delivering leaflets. However, we do not really want to go back through what happened in the 1945 to 1951 Labour Governments.

Keith Hill: We certainly do not, Mr. Pike. Actually, if we were to rehearse the litany of your own bons mots in this Room, we would be here for a very long time.

Peter Pike: Order. Do not lead the Committee astray, Mr. Hill.

Keith Hill: I hear your words, Mr. Pike. I am determined to get back to the amendments.

John Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Keith Hill: I will give way in a moment.
 Extending the period by one year to six years, as is proposed in amendments Nos. 437 and 440, would not lead to any substantive benefit. Some landlords would no doubt recoup small additional sums in repaid discount. Against that must be weighed the adverse affect on mobility—I have mentioned the seven-year average residence time. I accept that that effect may not be great, but it may just outweigh the benefits. Doubling the period to 10 years, as has been proposed, would clearly be disproportionate. The hon. Gentleman does not specify how the repayments should taper as the years go by. 
 Amendments Nos. 448, 450 and 451 would leave the reduction at one fifth per year. It is not clear what the hon. Gentleman envisages would happen after year seven. I assume that that is a drafting oversight. Assuming a one-tenth taper, his proposal would leave someone who qualified for a 30 per cent. RTB discount who wished to move on after eight years, and whose home was by then worth £150,000, liable to repay 20 per cent. of £45,000, or £9,000. That is a substantial sum to pay after so long a period, particularly as so many people move on after around seven years. I do not think that imposing as long a lasting tax on mobility as he proposes is justified. 
 There is a balance to be struck and the present Government, like their predecessors, have concluded that five years is the right period. In light of those reasonable explanations, I trust that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendments.

John Hayes: As I could not intervene in the course of the Minister's useful summary of our probing amendments, perhaps I could make one or two comments now. The Council of Mortgage Lenders made two things clear, both of which are pertinent to the amendments. First, it says that abuse, where it exists, is highly localised. It claims that that is drawn from research done by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I would be interested to hear the Minister's observations on that. Secondly, the council says that independent surveys suggest that the impact of the right to buy on the availability of social housing has been patchy and insignificant, so the argument advanced by some Committee members, although not necessarily by the Minister, that the real problem with the availability of social housing is the right to buy, seems not to be supported by lenders based on the survey evidence. I should be interested to hear the Minister's comments on that too, although I do not expect to change him, or for him to be moved at all by our robust defence of the right to buy. He will understand that these were probing amendments.
 It is important that we have a proper debate about how best to deal with the abuse that he has highlighted and we have acknowledged. The right to buy is unquestionably the right policy, but it needs to be implemented in a way that is fair and honest. He is right to draw attention to those companies who have sought to exploit people—some of whom are vulnerable—by approaching them with all kinds of dodgy deals to sell their house quickly after they have exercised their right to buy. We are both trying to tackle that problem, the Minister with his original proposals and us with our amendment. However, I do not expect to change his mind, because he will know that: 
 ''The most conservative man in this world is the British trade unionist when you want to change him.'' 
I think that it was Ernie Bevin who said that, and the Minister, of course, comes from a noble trade union background.

Matthew Green: The Minister gave a reasonable explanation, particularly when trouncing the Tories' amendment extending the period to 10 years. The fine balance between five or six years is a case of six of one and half a dozen of the other. The Minister was slightly wrong to ridicule my question about whether the figure he quoted was a mean or a median. That can make a substantial difference. In future, when the Minister quotes an average figure, he might want to say whether it is a mean or a median.
 I asked about which quintile was in question because the Minister wants not to restrict mobility overmuch. A graph could show for how long after buying a house people live in it before they sell it, what proportion will move within five years and what 
 proportion are being restricted. The answers to those questions are what I wanted from the Minister. My question might have been phrased in such a way that the Minister thought that I was being pedantic, but there was a reason behind it, which was to see what effect there will be on mobility. Do 30 per cent. of people sell within five years, and 70 per cent. after that period? Clearly, the Minister has figures to hand, so it is shame that he did not state them because they would have illuminated our discussion. I am sorry that he took my intervention in the way he did, which was not in the constructive way in which he normally responds. 
 We have heard a load of tosh from the Conservatives. Their Front Benchers ought to start talking to each other. In a debate on the Floor of the House only a couple of weeks ago, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon lauded the fact that the Conservatives had restricted the right to acquire in rural areas—the right to acquire is the equivalent of the right to buy. The right hon. Gentleman made a great play of that fact. The Minister might have been on the Government Front Bench at the time, although it might have been one of the his colleagues, but the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings was clearly somewhere else. 
 I suppose that that is to be expected from the Conservatives, because they have not got a clue what their policy is on so many areas, and it is quite clear that they do not have a clue about this issue. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings had not got a clue that the Government were restoring the situation to what it was in Margaret Thatcher's day. He thinks that she is sacred; other members of the Committee might hold considerably different views. 
 The Minister has given a plausible explanation for the five years provision, and I will not quibble about whether it should be five or six. It is a shame that the figures were not presented in the detail necessary to justify the provision. However, we have pursued this matter enough, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 449, in
clause 149, page 100, line 26, at end insert—
 '( ) A buyer will be exempt from the repayment of the discount after the specified period where there is a genuine need to alleviate potential hardship for reasons of severe illness, sudden bereavement or any other extenuating circumstances'.
 Judging from his earlier attempted intervention, the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) is anxious to make a brief contribution about this amendment. It is a fairly straightforward amendment. It is reasonable to say that someone who exercises his right to buy should not immediately sell his house to a company that has been set up specifically for the purposes described by the Minister, and so take advantage of the provision to make a quick buck. None the less, it is important that there are caveats and protection for people who, having bought a house, are obliged to sell it quickly—we can all imagine countless extenuating reasons for doing so. There is a need for 
 discretion, which is why the amendment includes the words ''other extenuating circumstances'', but the examples that immediately spring to mind are bereavement, severe illness or hardship. 
 This is a compassionate Conservative amendment and is designed to help people who would otherwise be put in a unacceptable position. It balances our earlier amendments. If the period of restriction is to be extended, we must build in protection for people who find themselves in the circumstances that I have described. 
 I hope that the Minister will recognise the intent of the amendment. We are not fixed on the precise detail, but are using it to probe the Minister into throwing some light on these matters. The amendment would be helpful and add to the Bill.

Matthew Green: I support the sentiment behind the amendment. However, it might be unnecessary because the Bill says that the landlord ''may'' demand repayment of discounts. It is necessary that some guidance be given to local authorities about the sensitivity of such action. I would be horrified if a local authority in my area demanded repayment when someone died. Members of the Committee would regard that as an unreasonable request. I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments of the amendment, but it is probably not necessary to draft it in those terms, because such matters are left to the discretion of local authorities, and that discretion could cover a much wider range of circumstances than the hon. Gentleman suggests. We could probably spend a lot of time going through examples, but the decision is probably best left to the individual case, the circumstances at the time and the discretion and understanding of local councillors of all parties.

Brian Iddon: I was about to make the same point as the hon. Gentleman. The amendment is so loose that it would need a large dose of Imodium to put it right. Extenuating circumstances would have to be tightly described, but my main objection to the amendment is that children sometimes purchase properties for their elderly parents and it would not be right for them to forgo paying the discount.

Keith Hill: I am interested in my hon. Friend's observation. We may have the opportunity to discuss such matters in later proceedings.
 Under section 155 of the Housing Act 1985, right-to-buy sales at a discount are subject to a covenant under which the landlord may require the buyer to repay some or all of his RTB discount if he resells the property within a specified period. Currently, that period is three years, but clause 149 raises that to five years as it was under the previous Administration. 
 The hon. Member for Ludlow is right in his interpretation of subsection (2), which also confirms that landlords will have discretion not to require the repayment of discount. The Government's intention is to provide for flexibility in circumstances where a mandatory requirement to repay discount might cause hardship. As I mentioned when I introduced the clause, we are aware of cases where people have exercised the right to buy and have then, 
 unfortunately, suffered bereavement or some disabling illness. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings referred to cases where people have needed to move but have not been able to do so because they could not afford to repay their discount. That does not happen often, but flexibility is needed for when it does. 
 I have undertaken to issue guidance on when using that flexibility might be appropriate. However, the hon. Gentleman's amendment would go further and specify in the Bill that a buyer will not have to repay any discount in certain circumstances if he could otherwise be required to during the specified five-year period. I note that the amendment says ''after the specified period'', but I assume that that is a drafting error. 
 I recognise that the amendment is intended to be helpful. However, as the hon. Gentleman recognises, repayment will not inevitably lead to hardship. Circumstances other than illness or bereavement could justify a landlord exercising discretion: for example, a relationship could break down in circumstances involving unacceptable harassment or violence, or somebody who had been unemployed for some time might have the opportunity to return to work but in another part of the country. There may be other circumstances that are impossible to foresee, and being too specific in the Bill could therefore lead to hard cases. 
 The essence of clause 149 is that it will be up to the individual landlord to decide what to do. Local authorities are, of course, bound by their fiduciary duties to taxpayers and are subject to audit. They will have to be able to justify the exercise of discretion to forgo money to which they would otherwise be entitled. We will offer guidance to landlords, but at the end of the day it will for them to decide in what circumstances it is right for discretion to be exercised. In light of those explanations, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

John Hayes: I said at the outset that this was a probing amendment, and the Minister has answered well the points that I raised. He has reassured the Committee that guidance will be available. I hope that that guidance will be weighted towards local authorities exercising that discretion with a large measure of compassion. He is right to say that there are extenuating circumstances apart from illness or bereavement, and I emphasised that we worded our amendment to cover precisely the situations that he has described.
 My worry is that there may be local authorities that are less than excited about the right to buy and who are therefore not terribly committed to the principle—a principle to which the Minister and I now share a commitment. Local authorities may not want to provide for any circumstances in which they could be seen to be encouraging the process. I am cautious—no more than that—about the measure being applied with a fairness and consistency around the country. I would not want to see local authorities that are cheek by jowl interpreting the Minister's guidance in different ways.

Keith Hill: Unusually, I rise to intervene on the hon. Gentleman. The issue of landlords dragging their feet has been raised on more than one occasion during our proceedings. I feel that it would therefore be useful if I set out the position on eventuality.
 If a tenant considers that his landlord is delaying the sale of his home, the legislation enables him to serve notices of delay. First, the landlord has at least one month to respond. If he does not, the tenant may serve a second notice, and if the landlord still does not respond, the tenant's rent is deducted from the purchase price. Delay means that the landlord is fined by getting less for the property. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to put that on the record.

John Hayes: That is a useful addition to our considerations.

Matthew Green: I know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned that some local authorities might not exercise as much discretion as others. However, I thought that the Conservatives—and Labour, following its recent conversion—were now in line with the Liberal Democrats in wanting local authorities to be able to take more decisions for themselves. I wish to alert the hon. Gentleman to a potential conflict so that he does not fall on the wrong side of it; he may be attempting to say that we want an overarching national decision when it is better left to local councillors—in many cases Conservatives—to take those decisions on the basis of local circumstances.

John Hayes: I did not make a party point. I was speaking about local authorities more generally.
 The hon. Gentleman is right in essence. A balance must be struck between the desires for consistency and local discretion. However, it would be unacceptable for neighbouring local authorities to have very different policies on this kind of hardship, so that where families live on either side of a local authority boundary those who by chance live on one side are treated with an appropriate degree of compassion and those who live on the other are not. Many scenarios spring to mind that the hon. Gentleman and most Committee members are likely to regard as unacceptable. 
 I have suspicions and fears. Local authorities have approached the right to buy with very different degrees of enthusiasm. I made some points about the differences between the parties, but this has not always been a matter of party political judgment; sometimes it has simply been a matter of efficiency and effectiveness. The Minister is rightly anxious to ensure that those issues are dealt with by the targets that are set for local authorities. 
 I am also mindful of the fact that despite the continuing popularity of the right to buy—there are about 40,000 sales each year—discounts were reduced in the late 1990s, and in 2003 in 41 local authority areas. There has been a gradual erosion of the principle that we established when we introduced the right to buy under the blessed Margaret Thatcher—as the 
 Minister rightly described her. Therefore, I am cautious. The amendment is designed to encourage the Government to ensure through the guidance the Minister has been kind enough to say will be issued, that local authorities act with a degree of consistent compassion so that people in the circumstances that have been described are treated fairly and properly. 
 Because of the Minister's extremely sensitive handling of this matter, I am delighted to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 149 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 150 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 151 - Deferred resale agreements

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Robert Syms: I should be grateful if the Minister would explain the clause more fully.
 It is clear that there are companies—certainly in central London—who arrive at agreements with tenants, allowing them to defer payment until they are outside the repayment period of purchase. The company then rents those properties at a commercial rate to workers in London who are desperate for accommodation. 
 Clause 151(3) mentions a tenant coming to an agreement with ''any other person''. That person could be a relative. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East pointed out that sometimes the children of tenants—who may be earning significantly more money—purchase properties for their parents. Alternatively, they may lend money to their parents or other relatives in council accommodation so that they can purchase property at a discount. I would like to tease out how that clause would affect a relative of a tenant, as opposed to a company that wishes to buy a flat at a discounted rate in order to let it out to a nurse or someone who has to live in central London. 
 It is a key issue. People may want to purchase a property for mum and dad, with the expectation that at some point that property will be sold. That will be a good deal for the children. Can the Minister tell us who clause 151 is meant to catch? Is it his intention to crack down on commercial companies that make a lot of money by taking advantage of such practices, and also the relatives of tenants who may want to help their mother or father purchase a property, with the expectation that in the fullness of time they will have an asset to sell?

Keith Hill: Clause 151 provides that any agreement entered into by a tenant to dispose of property that he or she is buying or has bought under the right-to-buy scheme will count as a relevant disposal—that is, one
 that triggers the repayment of discount—if, first, the agreement is made in contemplation of, or in connection with, the purchase under the right-to-buy scheme, secondly the agreement is made before the end of the discount repayment period, and thirdly, the disposal is to take place after the end of that period. Clause 151 also empowers the Secretary of State to provide by order that agreements of other kinds to that specified in the clause will count as relevant disposals, although agreements of a kind specified in the clause will not count as disposals.
 I assure the Committee that it is not the intention of those provisions to catch cases such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Poole, where relatives or children provide support for the acquisition of a right-to-buy property. The purpose of the clause is to catch cases of abuse. I assure the hon. Gentleman and Committee members that the Secretary of State will be able to exempt by regulation circumstances that would otherwise fall within Clause 151. 
 We are alert to the possibilities described by the hon. Gentleman. We do not want those circumstances to be caught by the provisions. The aim is to discourage tenants from buying solely for resale to companies or others, and to encourage longer-term commitment to their communities. When kids help their parents to acquire a property it is part of a longer-term commitment to the community. We are fully sympathetic to that objective. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 151 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 152 - Right of first refusal for landlord etc.

Amendments made: No. 396, in 
clause 152, page 103, line 26, at end insert 
 ', which shall be binding on the secure tenant and his successors in title. 
 This is subject to subsection (7A).'. 
No. 397, in 
clause 152, page 103, leave out line 33 and insert 
 'are prescribed by regulations under this section at the time when the conveyance or grant is made.'. 
No. 398, in 
clause 152, page 104, line 27, at end insert— 
 '(7A) In a case to which section 157(1) applies— 
 (a) the conveyance or grant may contain a covenant such as is mentioned in subsections (1) and (2) above instead of a covenant such as is mentioned in section 157(1), but 
 (b) it may do so only if the Secretary of State or, where the conveyance or grant is executed by a housing association within section 6A(3) or (4), the Relevant Authority consents. 
 (7B) Consent may be given in relation to— 
 (a) a particular disposal, or 
 (b) disposals by a particular landlord or disposals by landlords generally, 
 and may, in any case, be given subject to conditions.'. 
No. 399, in 
clause 152, page 104, line 37, leave out from 'etc.)' to 'subsections' in line 39 and insert '—
 (a) in subsection (1), after ''the conveyance or grant may'' insert ''(subject to section 156A(7A)''; 
 (b) in subsection (2), omit the words '', subject to subsection (4),''; and 
 (c) omit'.—[Keith Hill.]

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 446A, in
clause 152, page 104, line 48, after 'by', insert 'an independent valuer or'.
 The amendment would bring a degree of independence to the process of valuing properties that are resold to the landlord. There are real concerns about the first refusal enshrined in the Bill, whereby the tenant is obliged to offer their property for sale to the local authority in the first instance. The amendment, in conjunction with amendment No. 452, would bring an element of independence to the valuation process in a right-to-buy scenario when the landlord is given first refusal. There are real doubts in our mind, as I have said already, about the determination of all local authorities to deal with enthusiasm with people who exercise the right to buy.

Matthew Green: I am concerned, because my understanding is that the district valuer is not really part of the council; he or she is, in a sense, already an independent person. My concern about independent valuers is that one can get two such valuers into a property and they will give widely differing values. Indeed, I have known a valuer to ask a householder, ''Do you want this at the low end or the high end of the scale?'' There is a danger that the amendment might let abuses happen. Will he comment on that?

John Hayes: I think that the amendment is more likely to curb abuse. In most circumstances, when someone is valuing a property, they seek more than one opinion. The amendment effectively allows a second opinion to be sought—an opinion independent of those with a vested interest who have the first right to purchase the property. If we introduce the independent element, we at least give the tenant some assurance—I will not say a guarantee, but certainly some confidence—that they will not be presented with a value that is not commensurate with the market price. In that respect, an independent valuation is a desirable means of trying to achieve a fairer settlement instead of, as the hon. Gentleman says, a less fair one.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman is assuming that the district valuer is on the side of the council or the housing body, which I find slightly odd, particularly as councils often, in my experience, get annoyed with district valuers when they place values on things. However, I am more concerned about how the amendment is phrased. It would mean that the Bill read, ''an independent valuer or the district valuer''. The amendment is not about giving the tenant, once they have got an independent value, the right to challenge the value given by a district valuer through, say, a tribunal. The amendment says that the property could be valued by the district valuer, or by an independent valuer who has been brought in. If the amendment was more about, say, the right to appeal about the value, I would have a great deal more
 sympathy with it. However, as I see it, it is not; it is about allowing independent valuers to do the work currently done by district valuers.

John Hayes: That is a good point, but in essence we are trying to ensure that there is opportunity for someone other than the district valuer to be involved in the process. The hon. Gentleman has made a useful point about the relationship between that valuation and the rights and entitlements of tenants.
 The wording of our amendment may be imperfect in that respect, but in probing the Minister we seek to ensure that there is an opportunity for others to be involved in the process who are not directly associated with those with first refusal on the property. We might have framed the amendment—here I am probing my own probing amendment—to enshrine the sort of right to a second opinion to which the hon. Member for Ludlow alluded. 
 However, does the Minister feel that giving recourse to an independent valuer is a useful way of ensuring that the price set for the property is not unreasonable from the perspective of the tenant who would be obliged to offer it to the local authority in the first instance? I return to my scepticism about some local authorities' commitment to making the process fair and reasonable. I do not have any particular authority in mind but I am mindful that, as the Minister acknowledged in an intervention, we need to be pretty insistent on consistency between authorities and we should set targets for the way in which local authorities handle such sensitive issues. 
 We are talking about people's homes—their principal investment and their future. The more protection we can insert into the Bill, the better. I acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for Ludlow; perhaps we could have been even more determined to enshrine the rights of tenants in our amendment. However, he will understand the sentiment behind it, as I am sure the Minister will. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Matthew Green: I do not support the amendment, because I believe that it is inaccurate in what it seeks to do. It also raises the prospect of the householder paying for the valuation rather than the district valuer, who offers a free service, in effect. Perhaps the amendment imposes a charge on the householder, which I do not think the hon. Gentleman intended.
 I have read section 158 of the Housing Act 1985. The hon. Gentleman has a bit of a point. There might be circumstances in which a householder felt that a district valuer's valuation was unfair. That could happen on both sides; the housing authority might think that the district valuer's valuation was unfair. The Minister obviously is not interested in section 157 of the Housing Act.

Keith Hill: I had better pay attention then.

Peter Pike: Order. Let us not have sedentary interventions; they make it difficult for those recording our proceedings.

Matthew Green: The Minister says that I jump up on every single amendment and that he is getting tired of it. Well, in this instance I would like him to explain what right of appeal there is for a housing authority, a registered social landlord or a householder if they believe that a district valuer's valuation is wrong. I cannot find a right of appeal against district valuers in the Housing Act 1985. Their judgment seems absolutely binding.
 I believe that district valuers are independent, capable people. I do not doubt their professionalism. In other areas of Government and local government there is usually a right of appeal of some sort. However, in this instance, in some cases, people should appeal to the district valuer, who is being used as the valuing authority. There does not appear to be a stage of appeal if someone believes the value to be wrong. 
 Although I urge the Minister not to accept the wording of the Conservative amendment, because it has all sorts of connotations that we do not want, he should address the fact that, where something seems wrong with a valuation, from the viewpoint of the housing authority or householder, there needs to be a limited second opinion—at least, something needs to be included. Although I may be wrong, the 1985 Act does not provide for that.

Sydney Chapman: My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings makes a good point in the amendment. The public perception is that a district valuer is part of the local authority regime. I use that phrase advisedly. It would be helpful if an independent valuer determined the price when the tenant purchaser wished to dispose of, or sell the property. That is also the view of the Council of Mortgage Lenders. I do not know precisely what the procedure should be, but it is important, in the interests of the tenant purchaser, that he should be able to ask for an independent valuation.
 I do not dispute that the district valuer will come to a professional conclusion about what the price should be, but there should be some mechanism to protect the interests of the tenant purchaser. That may be difficult to put in legislation and I would, perhaps, accept that it should not be included in the Bill. I should be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on a significant point.

Keith Hill: First, I apologise for my unforgivable lapse of attention during the observations of the hon. Member for Ludlow. He has consistently fascinated me throughout nearly 60 hours of debate. I feel utterly abject in my failure on this occasion.
 There is no right of appeal for first-refusal purchases. It is for the parties to agree; if they cannot, the district valuer decides. It is possible to judicially review the district valuer. 
 The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings referred to the alleged reluctance of some local authorities to proceed with right-to-buy sales. The district valuer is an employee of the Valuation Office Agency—an agency of the Inland Revenue—and has nothing to do with the local authority, which is the landlord. I hope that that reassures the hon. 
 Gentleman and demonstrates that the district valuer procedure is reasonable in all normal cases, and in the overwhelming majority of cases.

John Hayes: There is no intention to suggest that district valuers are not eminent, highly confident people. I wish to put on the record my acknowledgement of their excellent work. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) said, some tenants will perceive them as establishment figures—not, perhaps, directly related to the local authority as the Minister described it, but certainly not someone who could be described as independent in the sense suggested by my hon. Friend—has arrived at a valuation with which they do not agree. We are told that such things can be judicially reviewed, but that would be beyond the scope of the vast majority of ordinary citizens. The key point is to have a second opinion.

Keith Hill: I shall deal with precisely that issue in my brief response. Clause 152 gives landlords who have sold homes under the RTB scheme, or other bodies prescribed by the Secretary of State, a right of first refusal. The owner of the property sold under the scheme must offer it to the landlord or other body if he or she wishes to resell it within 10 years of the RTB sale.
 As I said, we have consulted on the proposed procedures and the bodies to be prescribed, and the Secretary of State will prescribe in regulations the time limit within which such offers must be accepted. If they are not accepted within that time limit, the owner will be free to resell on the open market. The property will be offered at market value, which will be the value agreed by the parties. If they are unable to agree a value, it will be determined by the district valuer. 
 The Government intend to replicate the tried and tested arrangements for valuing properties being sold under the RTB scheme, which are covered by sections 127 and 128 of the Conservative Housing Act 1985, as well as the existing right of first refusal in cases where properties are offered back to landlords in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and designated rural areas, which are covered by sections 157 and 158 of the Act. 
 The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings wants to introduce an element of competition into valuation for first refusal purposes. Superficially, that may appear attractive, but it would have the disadvantage of introducing an element of delay into the offer process. In many cases, the parties will no doubt agree that the valuer suggested by one or the other is competent and trustworthy. However, we must be realistic. The would-be seller will seek the highest price that he can get, while the would-be buyer will want to spend as little as possible; neither will necessarily have full confidence in a valuer nominated by the other, however independent that individual might be in practice. 
 The district valuer has the advantage of being wholly independent of the parties in any particular case and of any local housing issues that may be relevant to a fair valuation. District valuers have been 
 involved in RTB valuations since 1980, and the system works well. The suggested alternative would bring no great benefit, and I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

John Hayes: I am grateful for the Minister's comments, but I am not sure whether he answered my points; he certainly did not persuasively answer those raised by the hon. Member for Ludlow.
 If one were to redraft the amendment, one might want to talk about the right of appeal, as has been suggested. In essence, however, the amendment is an attempt to inject the right to obtain a second opinion. If the Minister looks at amendment No. 452, he will see that we specifically argue that there should be an independent valuer, who both parties agree is competent. There would be a level of agreement between both parties to the process that they trusted that person to make a fair and reasonable decision. 
 I am not saying that the Minister does not have a point or that there might not be some confusion, but the argument is that there should be some protection for tenants in that respect, although it might apply also to landlords. The landlord might regard the district valuer's assessment as unsatisfactory, as the hon. Member for Ludlow suggests. So, the amendment is not exclusively a matter of protecting tenants, although I suspect that in the majority of cases, those who are selling will be more concerned about those matters than those buying. 
 The amendment would introduce a degree of independence that was not embedded in the original Act and is not in embedded in the Bill. We have the opportunity to improve the law by introducing that extra protection, that safety valve, on valuation. That is particularly important given that the Bill gives local authorities a greater role as the first point of contact for those selling a property within 10 years of buying it. If the local authority is to have first refusal, the balancing aspect of the amendment, which allows people to get a fair price agreed by an independent person, is all the more important. 
 Although I shall not press the amendment to a Division, I ask the Minister to think about that point. We might return to it or he might want to consider issuing guidance, but it is an important point, as was reflected in the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet and the hon. Member for Ludlow, and he would do well to cogitate on it.

Sydney Chapman: Before my hon. Friend seeks to withdraw the amendment, I wish to point out that we are talking about a situation in which the buyer and seller will normally try to agree a price. The Minister proposes that the matter should be taken to the district valuer only when the price is not agreed. When that happens, I believe that the valuer should be independent. Although I do not impugn the district valuer, he is seen to be part of what we now call ''the establishment''. It would be better if a list were drawn up of approved local independent valuers who could decide the price.

John Hayes: My hon. Friend will know that the establishment in the United Kingdom has now been penetrated—some would say infected—by the liberal bourgeoisie. He is right to be suspicious. Nevertheless, the point is important.
 When there is disagreement, there is all the more need to ensure that all parties feel that the matter has been dealt with empirically. I do not want to wax too lyrical about district valuers, or they will become big-headed, but I may say that they do an excellent job. However, most tenants would appreciate the extra assurance of an independent valuation, as my hon. Friend suggests. The situation will be difficult; people will be obliged to sell to one purchaser. That is never a happy situation. Most people selling homes can sell on the open market. The extra protection seems important. 
 I do not want to labour the point, as it has been well made, and we may return to it. The Minister has heard our arguments. These are sensible, non-partisan issues. As we need to speed on, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendments made: No. 400, in 
clause 152, page 105, line 2, at end insert— 
 '(ba) in subsection (2), for ''or surrendered'' substitute '', conveyed, surrendered or assigned'';'. 
No. 401, in 
clause 152, page 105, line 7, at end insert— 
 '(3A) In section 162 of that Act (exempted disposals which end liability under covenants), after paragraph (a) insert— 
 ''(aa) the covenant required by section 156A (right of first refusal for landlord etc.)is not binding on the person to whom the disposal is made or any successor in title of his, and that covenant ceases to apply in relation to the property disposed of, and''.'. 
 —[Keith Hill.] 
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Sydney Chapman: I do not wish to delay the Committee. I understand that the clause contains a requirement for the tenant purchaser to make an offer of first refusal to the former landlord. I understand that it also confers that right on ''such other person'' as the Secretary of State may prescribe. I can understand why the Secretary of State should have powers to prescribe if the former landlord is out of business or no longer exists. However, if that is not the case, I cannot see why the Secretary of State should need that power. The clause should be amended to say ''only when the former landlord no longer exists'', so that it does not give carte blanche to the Secretary of State to prescribe whomever he may like.

John Hayes: I understand the Bill to intend exactly what my hon. Friend suggests, although that is not made clear. I had assumed that the circumstances to which he refers were the kind of circumstances that were envisaged. However, he is right that, if that is the case, the wording is not sufficiently tight and needs to be amended. Perhaps the Minister will comment, as my hon. Friend has highlighted an important point.

Sydney Chapman: I am emboldened by the support of my hon. Friend, which has given a tremendous fillip to my political career. I have made my point and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

Keith Hill: I confess that I did not fully catch the hon. Gentleman's drift. It is common sense that if, during the 10 years, the landlord has switched from the local authority to a registered social landlord as a result of a transfer of some sort, the current landlord in the area should have first refusal. The intention is to prescribe other local social landlords—the point that I was making—but the principle is that the former landlord will always get the first bite of the cherry if he or it is still in situ.

Matthew Green: Will the Minister confirm what will happen in a situation in which transfer has taken place, as happened in my constituency in 1995? In the intervening time, there have been transfers between local registered social landlords—there are some good RSLs in South Shropshire. I understood him to say that it would be open to any of those local social landlords to attempt to acquire the property. For instance, South Shropshire Housing Association and Shropshire Rural Housing Association Ltd. operate in the same area. They occasionally transfer properties to each other. Can he confirm that if one of them purchases the council houses, but in the interim there has been movement between them, it will be open to either RSL to exercise the right of first refusal? That is what I understood, and I should be grateful for clarification. It might be that one RSL is over-committed in other areas, such as new build, and that another local RSL is better placed to bring the house back into the social sector.

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman is tempting us excessively along the path of what-iffery. When we consult on the bodies to be prescribed, we will consider such situations and the procedures to be adopted. Let us remember that we are talking about an offer within a period of 10 years. On the whole, my expectation is that the line of inheritance, as it were, on the transfers will be reasonably straightforward within such a limited period. He is as right as ever—fascinatingly so—about the need for the Government to think about all the options. That is exactly why we proposed to consult the relevant parties in detail before we write the detailed guidance.

John Hayes: Will the Minister be absolutely clear about the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet? In what specific circumstances will the Secretary of State intervene? Will he do so in the circumstances described by my hon. Friend or, as seems to be emerging as we debate the Bill and from what the Minister is saying, when a broader range of conditions apply?

Keith Hill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which enables me to invite the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet to remind the Committee of the specific circumstances, as described
 by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, who leads for the Opposition, that he had in mind when asking about the provisions of clause 152.

Sydney Chapman: I understood the clause to say that, when the tenant purchaser decides to dispose of his interest in the property, he must give first offer of refusal to the previous landlord. I think that he should do so, but the clause also refers to a body or person prescribed by the Secretary of State. I would like an assurance that the Secretary of State would use that power only if the previous landlord did not exist, whether he had gone out of business, left the area or whatever else, after which the offer of refusal can be given to someone else. Personally, unless I could have such a reassurance, I would not like the Secretary of State to have the option. He should exercise his powers under clause 152 only when the previous landlord has gone out of business.

Keith Hill: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no conspiracy. There is no intention that, by prescription, an owner of an RTB property should be required to sell to a body, which might be a body to which both he and I took exception on the grounds that it was not the appropriate one to receive the first offer.
 Let me attempt again to explain the purpose of the clause. Clause 152 requires owners who wish to resell their homes within 10 years of their having been bought under the right-to-buy scheme to offer them at market value to their former landlord or to another body prescribed by the Secretary of State, such as another social landlord. The former landlord may not always be the most appropriate body, as it may have transferred to another body its remaining interest in that property or connected properties. Also, the former landlord may not wish or may be unable to repurchase, in which case other social landlords should be given the chance to repurchase the property. It seems to me that our intentions are clear: we intend to keep the property in the social sector and think that it should continue to be available for the purposes of social and affordable housing if that is the choice of the local authority, a successor body or another relevant social landlord. It seems to me that those purposes are impeccable in these circumstances.

John Hayes: Those purposes may be impeccable, but the wording of the Bill is not impeccable. The intention of the Minister is clear, and there is no suggestion of a conspiracy. We are not trying to be conspiratorial, but trying to be precise. My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet is saying that this part of the Bill should be amended by the Government to make their purpose absolutely clear.
 I have no doubt that the Government intend the Secretary of State to intervene only in extreme cases, such as those suggested by my hon. Friend, but the Bill does not state that. The Bill is left open, as it can be broadly interpreted that the Secretary of State may choose whom he wishes. The Minister has made it clear that that is not the Government's intention, so 
 would it not be wise for him to think about qualifying the Bill rather than extending the debate, so that it is clear in which circumstances the Secretary of State might intervene? For example, there might be cases in which the previous landlord is, for one reason or another, no longer available for the role described.

Keith Hill: I disagree. I have made it clear that the intention is to prescribe other local social landlords. I could not be clearer. I have repeatedly put that on the record. The House will have the opportunity in due course to scrutinise the proposals, and it can take exception to them if it so desires. The Government's intention is to prescribe other local social landlords, and there must be no dubiety about that.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 152, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 153 - Information to help tenants decide whether to exercise right to buy etc.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Brian Iddon: I welcome the clause. I notice that the Local Government Association and many other stakeholders have requested that the Government include it in the Bill. I certainly think that it is essential.
 In my experience of talking to hundreds of tenants, when they consider buying their council house they look at the rent that they are paying, which they know will rise roughly in line with wages, and they go to a building society to find out what they would pay for a mortgage, which will be relatively constant through time as their wages rise. They make their decision to buy on that basis, and in some cases without taking into account any other considerations. It is right that somebody should advise them on the costs of running a property, including not only the costs of the utilities, insurance and everything else that is rightly included in the document that we received this morning, but the cost of maintenance. 
 As chairman of a housing committee, I have authorised programmes of maintenance on estates, and when we have finished a programme, many of the right-to-buy properties have stood out like sore thumbs. They have become dilapidated over several years because the tenants have not been able to maintain them. I have been surprised by the naivety of some tenants. When a painting contractor has begun to paint a house that has gone into the owner-occupiership of a previous right-to-buy tenant, the owner-occupier at the time will sometimes merely assume that the local authority is painting their house for nothing. 
 Right to buy has hidden costs. We could consider a terrace of council properties, between which there may be alleyways, but also a running gutter across the top. A local authority could decide to replace the gutter all the way along the terrace, despite the fact that there 
 might be several right-to-buy properties within it. It would be easier to do that than to stop and start the gutter every time there was a right-to-buy property. I could wax lyrical about dozens of similar cases of hidden costs. 
 I wish that clause 153 had been in effect when the Conservatives instigated right to buy in 1980. I remind the Committee of the problems that arose with regard to houses with defects—does anybody remember them? There are all kinds of system-built properties in Bolton, and one kind was Orlits properties—concrete block properties with no cavities that were built with high alumina cement that started to blow inside and outside the properties and exposed all the steel infrastructure to the weather. Many tenants bought such properties. 
 When the Conservatives were in government, they foisted on local authorities the Housing Defects Act 1984, under which authorities were forced to buy all the properties back again. In Bolton, we bought them all back bar two—there were hundreds of them—and we had to buy them at the market value of the time. What a cost that imposed on all local authorities. In the case of Bolton, it cost millions of pounds, which would have been better spent on maintaining those properties or on repairing other properties in the borough. That could all have been avoided if the clause had been introduced in a previous Act. One strong recommendation would be that the tenant should consult a valuer, or—as in the Bill—that the condition of the house should be stated up front so that they can see it clearly. 
 It was not only Orlits properties that caused us problems. At least one builder went to the local power station and obtained sulphate-containing ash. The foundations of the property in question were constructed by putting the ash on the ground, as well as a layer of concrete and a layer of asphalt. The sulphate begins to expand as it gets damp—admittedly this occurs over 20, 30, 40 or 50 years—and the floor lifts. Believe it or not, people who bought such properties returned to the local authority. They had assumed that the authority would put right a major structural defect free of charge. The naivety of people who have rented properties from the council all their lives is unbelievable. They do not understand the full consequences of purchasing their council property.

Karen Buck: Perhaps my hon. Friend will comment on the practices that were common in Westminster city council in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when a package was offered that included surveys and mortgage assistance to encourage people to exercise their right to buy. That was wrapped around what was subsequently found to be an illegal indemnity scheme against major repairs. One consequence was that huge numbers of lessees who bought on the belief that they would have a cost-free property and that their financial commitment would not be great found that through that scheme or subsequently, they were faced with maintenance bills of £10,000, £15,000 or £20,000. A number of those people ended up back in my surgery because they had lost their homes and were homeless.

Brian Iddon: That is another example of why the clause has been necessary for a long period, which is why I strongly welcome it. I thank the Government for putting the clause into the Bill.

Matthew Green: I was not going to speak, but the hon. Gentleman reminded me of a different and in some ways less severe situation in my constituency.
 Large parts of my constituency are not on mains sewerage. Householders can make an official request, with which Severn Trent has to comply in certain conditions, to bring mains sewerage into a village. In one village, Clumbury, trying to negotiate that process has taken two years. Some of the people who made the request had purchased their properties, but their sewage goes into a joint sewage outlet that is shared with properties that are still owned by the registered social landlord. In this case, the houses were sold off by the council and South Shropshire housing association. 
 Through no fault of anyone concerned, there is an intractable problem in Clumbury. The local residents, the housing association and Severn Trent are locked in a sort of Gordian knot that I have attempted to cut, although I have not succeeded in doing so. If better information had been available to tenants when they 
 bought those properties about what their ongoing liabilities were in terms of sewage, many of the problems that have emerged and are affecting other householders in relation to the provision of mains sewerage in the area—

John Hayes: Reluctant though I am to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's travelogue of the sewers and cesspits of Ludlow, is he not implying, rather as our very own Jeremiah from Bolton has, that the information provided to people would deter rather than encourage them from buying houses? Is that not his intent and that of the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East?

Matthew Green: No. The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. In the circumstances that I described, separate provision for sewerage might have been made. Most of the properties use individual cesspits—I shall not go into too much detail about sewage in my constituency, although I sometimes think that the hon. Gentleman speaks enough of it—
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, the chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.